Pages

February 7, 2009

Four Sources Tell SI A-Rod Tested Positive For Two Steroids In 2003

In 2003, when he won the American League home run title and the AL Most Valuable Player award as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two anabolic steroids, four sources have independently told Sports Illustrated. ...

The list of the 104 players whose urine samples tested positive is under seal in California. However, two sources familiar with the evidence that the government has gathered in its investigation of steroid use in baseball and two other sources with knowledge of the testing results have told Sports Illustrated that Rodriguez is one of the 104 players identified as having tested positive, in his case for testosterone and an anabolic steroid known by the brand name Primobolan. ...

Primobolan, which is also known by the chemical name methenolone, is an injected or orally administered drug that is more expensive than most steroids. ... Kirk Radomski [writes in his recent book] how players increasingly turned to drugs such as Primobolan in 2003, in part to avoid detection in testing. ...

SI also claims -- and this is perhaps a bigger story than Slappy doing roids -- that three major league players have said Gene Orza, the chief operating officer of the players' union, tipped off Slappy about an upcoming drug test in September 2004. Turning a blind eye to steroid use for years is one thing; assisting players in avoiding detection is quite another matter.

Given that it is now inevitable that all of the names who tested positive in 2003 will come out, maybe it's in the union's best interest to release every name now rather than deal with the drip, drip, dripping of names over time. Pull the band-aid off quickly, if you will. ... Doesn't fairness and historical accuracy and all of that demand that we know who else tested positive in 2003?

Here is video of Slappy (three days before the Mitchell Report was released in December 2007) denying ever even being tempted to use PEDs.

Let me add that I fully expect some Red Sox players will be on that 2003 list.

You have to expect Several Red Sox and every other team to have player named. Just for the record I am a lifelong Yankee fan. I truly hope that Derek Jeter never used. I have no reason to suspect him except that it may be possible that every player used duing the late 90s till at least 2005.But right now if I was a Red Sox fan I would be LMAO.

Nomar wouldn't surprise me. His productivity sure vanished after mandatory testing. That always makes me suspicious. (I call it the Bret Boone syndrome.)Still, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, the news today. I've suspected him for years.

MFY-rooting college buddy: "yes, but honestly? there are 103 other players on that list. who are they, and why was a-rod the only leak? and also, since he got to the yankees he's been tested more times than any other player, and he's always been clean. he's also won two mvp's since 2003 - just saying. i'm not excusing him, but this witchhunt has to stop - either release all the names, or stop."

since he got to the yankees he's been tested more times than any other player

I thought players that tested positive ended up being subject to additional tests. Which was why Slappy's comment last year or two years ago about being tested "a million times" raised a few eyebrows -- but then he quickly backed away from that statement.

and he's always been clean

You also thought he was clean up until two hours ago.

But shit, he said all that and never mentioned the word "Ortiz"? I'm actually impressed.

Did you read Will Carroll's article on Prospectus yesterday? Awful purple prose aside, it's pretty saddening. Apparently there are a whole lot more steroids that can't be tested for than steroids that can be tested for. At this point, you've pretty much either got to be a moron or get a bad vial of some designer steroid to get caught.

I always figured that list would come out; but I always kind of hoped it wouldn't.

Remember the White Sox all refusing to give samples, so that they'd be default fails and lead to mandatory testing? I wonder if that's counted in the 104...

One certainly has to wonder a lot about this story - the timing of the release, the fact we've only gotten A-Rod's name so far, even the actual veracity of the claims (still not totally proven, in my mind). There's only so much we know at the moment. And, as our peerless leader has pointed out, the Orza thing is a far bigger deal in terms of overall importance to the game and to the player's union. I simply can't get too worked up for steroid stuff anymore - not even an Ortiz revelation would hurt me. Okay, it would, but not a lot.

On the other hand, "schadenfreude" does not even begin to describe how I'm feeling. The Yankees get to kick off maybe the most spotlight-laden season in their history under just about the most inauspicious circumstances possible. But at least the New York press isn't given to blowing stuff up out of proportion...

Apparently there are a whole lot more steroids that can't be tested for than steroids that can be tested for.

It's my understanding (from Olympics coverage) that that has always been the case. By the time the anti-doping crowd finds a test, the dopers are way ahead of them. There is usually a greater incentive to find new ways to cheat than to find new ways to catch cheaters.

"If steroids were talked about in a sports movie in 1974, MLB's claim that steroids didn't really get into baseball until the mid-nineties doesn't really hold a lot of water with me."

Yeah but baseball wasn't about bulk in the 70s and 80s, just look at the players. They had different drugs then. A baseball player probably wouldn't want steroids back then if you did offer--"why would I want drugs for weightlifters?"

Q: I'm not sure if AROD should sue, but the Union certainly ought to. So much for the confidentiality agreement. If the list is not officially released, I'd totally ignore it as unproven. If it is released, the Union should sue for a contract violation. Why should the players agree to any program that is as shoddily policed as is the MLB drug program?

Schilling: Bingo. Look the confidentiality part is inconsequential to the positive tests. These guys are nailed, and more are likely to be outed.But we stated back then, I know I did as a rep, our complete and total distrust of the owners. You do NOT attach 'owners' and 'confidentiality' in the same sentence. These guys outright lied to our faces when presented with documentation that they were misreporting their clubs earnings in everything from concessions to TV revenue, we knew this wasn't going to work.That being said, I feel like they just need to list the 104 players, and let the chips fall, and move on.As far as 'leaks' and why there are no Sox, I can't answer that other than it appears the leaks are from federal agents or people on the government side of things.I have a feeling we're inching up to seeing them all at some point. Someone will go for the dollars here because I'd be stunned if they hadn't gone through the positives and matched up every 'anonymous' number to the players name.....

***

Q: In all seriousness, Curt, how would you feel if it came out that one of your 2001 or 2004 teammates tested positive? I'm sure you may have an idea about some, but I mean actual proof? Would it diminish the achievement, especially if it were a key member of the team (say, driving in the WS winning run?)

Schilling: I don't know. It's going to happen, it has to happen. I have no idea which or when it will, but it will.

****

Q: I was going to say... Curt... what if YOU were one of the positive tests?

Schilling: I won't be, I can't be. I've never used anything resembling a steroid in my life, ever. I've always said 'this is not a body, this is a cruel family joke". Smart ass I know, but I cannot have tested positive, I've never used either.

Q: Ugh, that's the same thing Alex said... Not saying I'm doubting you, but how can we trust anyone anymore?

"NESN is hardly covering themselves in glory with this story. They broke the news with the little update from the studio, but naturally showed all the ARod highlights with him in a Yankees uniform, which was deliberately misleading because the report references the 2003 season when he was with Texas. That's not stopping NESN from allowing the careless viewer to think that he's been doping with 'roids his entire time in NY."

"Selena Roberts is on the MLB Network right now, answering questions from Bob Costas about the SI story. Among other things, she said that she gave A-Rod every opportunity to refute the story and traveled to Miami to talk with him in person on Thursday.

Thursday.

That means Rodriguez knew that SI had uncovered his positive test two days ago. Yet The Journal News has learned the Yankees knew nothing about the story until this morning because Rodriguez did not call them to let them know what was coming.

Why didn’t he let the Yankees know? No one knows for sure. But it’s hardly a stretch to think he wasn’t interested in answering the obvious questions that everyone – you, me and surely Yankees officials – would want answered.

"The [Orza] tipping issue is a particularly-scandalous aspect of this entire story, essentially implying that there was a cover-up in place to keep high-profile players from testing positive. Who knows how often Orza or other union members were helping players get a heads-up on when tests were coming? It will be interesting to see both how MLB reacts to that (remember, MLB and the Players’ Association are two different and opposing organizations), as well as the players themselves. If you’re a player who DIDN’T get tipped, aren’t you a little angry right now?"

The ramifications of this story can be historical...This can blow up this union from the inside out...

Tony said... I simply can't get too worked up for steroid stuff anymore -

Really some say the greatest player in History used steroids to gain advantage and earn millions...That doesn't get you worked up..I'm not sayin I wouldn't do it if someone told me I would earn 500 million dollars, all I had to do was a few cycles.It maybe hard to say no....But what this story tells you is that 600+ ballplayers didn't take steroids , they should be the story..

This thread is a very nice compilation of sources, showing a lot of angles on this.

Here's mine:

A-Rod's reputation will suffer for this, but it will not destroy him unless he does something stupid (a la Clemens). At this point, there is a fair amount of steroid-news fatigue among fans, and it sticks out like a sore thumb that the other 103 need to be named.

Although I respect A-Rod, I do dislike him. But I am not up in arms or even ankle deep in schadenfreude about the news. At this point, it does seem unfair to single him out. I'm disappointed that (uh, if) he took steroids. But it just seems like such a broad pool of offenders. After all, we're a nation (or perhaps a species) of competitive people and drug users. As L-Girl said, do we expect baseball to be much different?

I would not get worked up that he lied about it, either. I mean, since this thing started everyone's been asked so it would be on the record if it ended up being untrue. Contrary to Western morality, which tends to hypocritical absolutes, I don't think one can expect people to willingly confess this kind of thing.

Yes I hate A-rod on the field (especially when he's playing the sox). He's a whiny little bitch most of the time, but he was also about to be the best baseball player of all time stat-wise.I'm happy that this report will quiet his pompous Yankee ass, but then again I'm a little sad to see the greatest player of my generation get tarnished.The sport of baseball has gotten out of control!

A-Rod's reputation will suffer for this, but it will not destroy him unless he does something stupid (a la Clemens). At this point, there is a fair amount of steroid-news fatigue among fans, and it sticks out like a sore thumb that the other 103 need to be named.

I agree. Look at Giambi, Pettitte, Ankiel, etc.What people can't seem to stand, rightly or wrongly, is when people are caught and deny it to the bitter end. That seems to be a bigger sin to a lot of people than the original doping.

What people can't seem to stand, rightly or wrongly, is when people are caught and deny it to the bitter end. That seems to be a bigger sin to a lot of people than the original doping.

It's true. It's very common in the US (and maybe other places, I don't know) that if people will admit they did something wrong and put on a credible show of contrition, the public will forgive all kinds of things. But act too tough or invincible or deny it in the face of evidence, and you're finished.

I wonder why that is. And more so, I wonder why more people can't get over themselves to say and do the things that will get them back in good graces.

I assume it's because of the prevalence of Christian fundamentalism down here.

But lying about a transgression is more offensive than merely committing a transgression in two important ways: first, it's cumulative with having committed the transgression in the first place; and second, the offense feels more personal (as an insult to the listener's intelligence, as an undeserving invitation to lend undue credibility, etc.).

Living in Japan during the Lewinsky scandal, I noticed how all my students couldn't believe the outrage in the US over Clinton's lie. Their attitude was, "Of course he's going to lie in that situation! Who wouldn't?" I don't think it's just a matter of US religious fundamentalism, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. It's more "fundamental" than that. In Japan, at least, morality is more relative, which has some downsides but I think is more realistic.

I noticed how all my students couldn't believe the outrage in the US over Clinton's lie. Their attitude was, "Of course he's going to lie in that situation! Who wouldn't?"

I was thinking of that, too. "But he lied!" Everyone acting so shocked.

And the whole thing around "showing remorse" in court - people convicted of crimes getting lighter sentences if they "show remorse" - which could be an act, or a function of how articulate or expressive they are - and people who for whatever reason can't express remorse (which doesn't mean they don't feel it) being punished more harshly for the same deed. I find it very strange, and wrong.

I agree that it's not down to fundamentalism. It may have something to do with Christianity, but it's more basically American than fundamentalism - more widespread.

And totally off-topic

I noticed how all my students couldn't believe the outrage in the US over Clinton's lie.

Then there was the French/European response: whoever heard of a president who didn't fool around? What is your problem?

* * * *

This is a great gamethread but I can't seem to concentrate on the game.

I noticed how all my students couldn't believe the outrage in the US over Clinton's lie. Their attitude was, "Of course he's going to lie in that situation! Who wouldn't?"

I think Nixon's a good analogy, too. I believe if he had come out early in 1973 and said, "yes we were involved in the break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters. It was wrong, it was stupid and we apologize," the whole Watergate thing would've essentially blown over and he would be remembered today mostly as a great president for his handling of China and the Soviet Union and Watergate would've been a minor blip on the screen.Thankfully for us, Nixon was a Dick!